In response to the dynamic and temporally unstable nature of L2 motivation, although few, some SLA researchers have started to address L2 motivational processes and discuss respective elements involved at each motivational phase. One of the latest and most comprehensive frameworks constructed with this effort was a process model of L2 motivation proposed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998). Inspired by Heckhausen and Kuhl’s action control theory, Dörnyei and Ottó tried to introduce a process-oriented perspective of L2 motivation and synthesized an ample body of L2 motivation research into a unified and systematic framework.
This model, as Dörnyei summarized (2003, p. 18), is a process model of L2 motivation that “breaks down the overall motivational process into several discrete temporal segments organized along the progression that describes how initial wishes and desires are first transformed into goals and then into operationalized intentions, and how these intentions are enacted, leading (hopefully) to the accomplishment of the goal and concluded by the final evaluation of the process.” The following section gives a detailed description of Dörnyei’s model and provides related empirical findings.
2.2.2.1 The Sequential Pattern of L2 Motivational Process
Similar to the action control theory, Dörnyei and Ottó’s model demonstrates an action sequence which is basically composed of three discrete phases: preactional (concerning choice motivation preceding the implementation of action, dealing with how motivation is formed), actional (referring to executive motivation which regulates the motivation generated at the first stage and maintains the current intention when it is implemented) and postactional (regarding an overall appraisal after the action has been accomplished or terminated). Preactional phase includes goal setting,
intention formation, and initiation of intention enactment. Actional phase concerns action while post-actional phase addresses a retrospective evaluation after the action has been completed.
This model, furthermore, specifies the corresponding motivational effects on each phase. More specifically, the model details the motivational forces or motives that facilitate or hinder the behavioral process. It is worth noting that the motives indicated to affect each motivational stage differ greatly as learners move from one to another. For example, the executive motivational influences associated with the actional phase are not directly related to the motives working upon the earlier or later stages of the motivational process. This tenet echoes with the assumption of the action control theory that the predesicional phase (choice motivation) and the postdecisional phase (executive motivation) encompass essentially distinct variables.
A recent study by MacIntyre, MacMaste, and Baker (2001) has provided empirical evidence to indicate the process aspect of L2 motivation. These researchers conducted a factor analysis to examine the convergence of 23 motivational scales from multiple L2 motivational frameworks. They found that these scales neatly fell into three separate factors. The first two, labeled as attitudinal motivation and self-confidence, were associated with established components of L2 motivation, chiefly concerned with the preactional phase. However, the third factor, termed as action motivation, was closely tied with the actional stage of L2 motivation. The emergence of action motivation as an independent variable explicitly indicates the process dimension of L2 motivation.
As a whole, Dörnyei and Ottó’s process-oriented model highlights the dynamic character and temporal variation of L2 motivation, which is a potentially fruitful approach to interpreting and integrating motivational factors that affect language learning behaviors in classroom settings (Dörnyei, 2003; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003).
Two recent empirical studies (Chen, Warden, & Chang, 2005; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008) have made initial steps to approach L2 motivation based on this model and have both indicated that this process-oriented perspective on L2 motivation led to a fuller understanding of the whole motivational learning process.
Chen et al. (2005) examined the interrelations among variables functioning in preactional (instrumental, integrative, and required orientation), actional (actual language use measured by effort and success), and postactional phases (self-evaluation). It was shown that the preactional phase did not highly correlate with the variables in the postactional phase, but the actional phase was significantly related to postactional phase factors. This finding supported the mediating effect of the actional phase and implied that high levels of initial motivation may not transform directly to skill achievement.
The other study from a process-oriented motivational view is a causal one by Tseng and Schmitt (2008). Tseng and Schmitt, by constructing structural equation modeling, validated a proposed model of motivated English vocabulary learning. This model, drawing on the work by Dörnyei (2001a, 2001b) about the motivational stages, consisted of six variables, one of which (initial appraisal of vocabulary learning experience) represented the outcomes of the preactional phase, three (self-regulating capacity, strategic involvement, and mastery of learning tactics) the actional and two (vocabulary knowledge and post-appraisal) the postactional phrase. A systematic cycle from the initial motivational level (the preactional stage) to the retrospective evaluation (the postactional stage) was found, which demonstrated that, instead of an initial state, motivation was an integral segment of the whole vocabulary learning process. It also showed that the predictive power of choice motivation on effective strategy use was positively significant only via the demonstration of self-regulatory capacity. To put it differently, in an EFL setting, volitional control was also confirmed
to mediate between motivational factors and strategic learning behaviors.
Although Tseng and Schmitt (2008) examined the role of motivation as a process and made the first endeavor to explore learners’ self-regulatory capacity in language learning, their research target solely fell on the vocabulary learning process, which is merely one particular domain of language learning. Accordingly, further studies are needed to examine L2 motivation in general from a process-oriented perspective and to investigate the potential impacts of volitional control by applying Tseng and Schmitt’s soundly-developed vocabulary learning model to general language learning processes.
2.2.2.2 Self-Regulatory Strategies
Following the main assumption of the action control theory, Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) process model of L2 motivation also marked the influence of action control strategies during the actional stage. As mentioned above, action control strategies are self-regulatory mechanisms activated to enhance, scaffold or protect learning-specific actions (Dörnyei, 2001a).
They are particularly important, as Dörnyei and Ottó suggested, for two basic reasons. First, it has been found that academic schoolwork were generally considered by teenage learners the least rewarding, motivating, interesting activity (Wong &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Schneider, Csikszentmihalyi, & Knauth, 1995). This negative belief widely held by learners establishes numerous opportunities for a wide range of distractions to interfere with learning. Self-regulatory strategies are therefore needed for the sake of learning effectiveness. Second, in school contexts, learners were frequently imposed with tasks which they had little room to choose during the preactional phrase. Since the motivational force stimulated at the choice motivation stage is relatively fragile, the volitional control mechanism is required to maintain and
even enhance learners’ motivation to reach the ultimate goal of acquisition.
Based on Kuhl’s (1987), Corno and Kanfer’s (1993) taxonomy of action control strategies, Dörnyei (2001a) developed a scheme of language learning self-regulatory or self-motivating strategies as follows (cf. Dörnyei, 2001a, p. 110-115):
1. Commitment control, techniques that help to preserve or enhance the learners’
original goal commitment (e.g. keeping in mind favorable expectancies or positive incentives, or focusing on what would happen if the original intention failed).
2. Metacognitive control, techniques used to monitor and control concentration and to stop procrastination (e.g. giving oneself regular self-reminders to concentrate, giving oneself regular self-reminders of the deadline, or intentionally ignoring attractive alternatives or irrelevant aspects).
3. Satiation control, technique intended to add extra attraction to the task (e.g.
adding a twist to the task, or using one’s fantasy to live up the task).
4. Emotion control, techniques used to manage obtrusive states and generate emotions which are conducive to implementing the intentions (e.g.
generating useful diversions, self-affirmation, constructing positive narratives of events, or finding humorous elements).
5. Environment control, techniques used to eliminate negative environmental influences and exploit positive ones (e.g. removing environmental sources of interference and temptations, asking friends to restrict you, or making a public commitment).
Dörnyei’s (2001a) taxonomy of self-motivating strategies, mainly derived from the psychological field, has not been extensively transferred to a concrete instrument assessing language learners’ self-regulatory capacity. The only measure of self-regulation in L2 learning we can find from the literature is a self-report instrument conceptualized, developed, and validated by Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006), which is named ‘Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc)’. With the notion that the most crucial aspect of strategic learning dose not lie in the specific techniques learners actually employ but rely on the fact that learners
exert purposive effort to improve their learning, this measure taps into general tendencies and inclinations of language learners’ self-regulation rather than focuses on specific behavioral descriptions.
By means of confirmatory factor analysis, Tseng et al. demonstrated that this psychometrically-based measure of L2 learners’ self-regulatory capacity reached satisfactory reliability and validity, and thus suggested that Dörnyei’s (2001a) self-regulatory framework is empirically valid. However, this measure, to date, has solely been used to assess learners’ self-regulatory capability in a specific domain, i.e.
English vocabulary acquisition. The self-regulation of L2 learning in general has not been explored, which can be effectively probed into through Dörnyei’s self-regulatory scheme (2001a) and Tseng et al.’s proposed measurement (2006).